A man has admitted his part in the aftermath of a "serious" workplace incident three years ago, while another man charged in relation was yet to enter a plea. Photo / 123RF
A man has admitted his part in the aftermath of a "serious" workplace incident three years ago, while another man charged in relation was yet to enter a plea. Photo / 123RF
One of two men charged with dishonesty offences related to a serious workplace incident has now admitted his part in what happened.
The man, who can’t be named for reasons linked to the name suppression of another man charged in relation to the same incident, has pleaded guilty to making a false statement.
The man was convicted in the Nelson District Court on Friday on a reduced charge to what was initially laid following the incident in Nelson more than three years ago.
He initially faced charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and an additional charge of intentionally misleading WorkSafe investigators.
On Friday, he admitted an amended Crown charge that on an occasion when he was required or permitted by law to make a statement before a person authorised by law to receive it, he made a statement that would amount to perjury if made under oath in a judicial proceeding.
One of two men charged in relation to a serious workplace incident three years ago has pleaded guilty to a reduced charge in the Nelson District Court.
He was remanded on bail to a date this month for a pre-sentence report and to set a nominal date for sentencing.
The other person charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice has not yet entered a plea.
The charges are related to a workplace incident, which preceded one similar.
It’s alleged that WorkSafe only became aware of the initial incident when investigations were under way into the second, more serious incident and that despite requests for all documentation, WorkSafe was told the company could find no reference to a similar incident.
Name suppression for the pair was lifted by the court following an earlier suppression hearing, but an interim order was reinstated almost immediately when the defendants indicated they planned to appeal the decision.
At the earlier hearing the Crown opposed suppression, which was supported by NZME, publisher of the New Zealand Herald and Open Justice reporting, as an interested party.
Suppression was sought on the grounds that publishing the defendants’ names would cause reputational damage and extreme hardship to them, their families and the entities associated with the company.
The lawyer acting for one of the defendants, Michael Vesty, said the consequences of publicity would go “well beyond ordinary consequences”.
Suppression was also opposed because the grounds advanced did not reach the “very high threshold” of extreme hardship.
The Crown argued that the application for suppression would fail at the first discretionary stage.
Prosecutor Jackson Webber said because the company was not a defendant, it could not be said that hardship would exist for anyone connected with it.
He said there were no logical explanations given as to how publication of the defendants’ names would impact the functions of the business, its clients or staff, other than nebulous claims around bad outcomes if their names were published.
NZME submitted the nature of the charges, including alleged dishonesty and alleged circumvention of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, warranted lifting of suppression.
Counsel for NZME Ashleigh Harding said the Act was designed by Parliament to create a high level of responsibility among employers.
She argued that heightened public interest in the case - a point raised by the defence - was linked to heightened public interest in such matters, and the media’s role in this should not be underestimated.
Name suppression for the pair was due to lapse this month.
